Felix Enrique Pacheco Sierra v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FELIX ENRIQUE PACHECO SIERRA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72009
Agency No. A097-867-610
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Felix Enrique Pacheco Sierra, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,
FILED
APR 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-72009 2
Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pacheco-Sierra’s motion to
reopen because the BIA considered the evidence submitted and acted within its
broad discretion in determining Pacheco-Sierra did not show prima facie eligibility
for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against
Torture. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988) (the BIA may deny a
motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief
sought); see also Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (the BIA’s
denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or
contrary to law”).
In the opening brief, Pacheco-Sierra does not challenge the BIA’s
determination that the motion to reconsider the denial of his cancellation of
removal claim was not timely filed. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Pacheco-Sierra’s challenge to the
immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal and his related due process

-- 2 of 3 --

08-72009 3
claim, because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v.
INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --